My first response was to gasp, then to shake my head in wonder--today's Washington Post criticizes (yep, I'm still shocked) the president for misleading the public on the true cost of healthcare reform.
This was funny in a sad, bizarre, ironic way.
Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, led a vigil at the Notre Dame commencement. He wrote about the experience which was published at LifeSiteNews.com:
Fr. Frank Pavone Writes "My Day at Notre Dame"
By Father Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life
SOUTH BEND, Indiana, May 18, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - There was an eerie stillness and silence across the Notre Dame campus as my colleagues, a few of the seniors and I walked across the campus very early on the morning of Commencement Day. It was the calm before the storm of what we knew was an historic day.
I started with a national Foxnews interview along with Fr. Richard McBrien. We were asked our views of the Commencement. My message was: Everyone can imagine people they would protest speaking at a commencement: an avowed racist, anti-Semite, or advocate of terrorism. So the failure to object to one who is unwilling to call for an end to abortion is the failure to see that abortion is as bad or worse than those other evils. We have to stop trivializing abortion.
Moreover, the university gave the President an honorary law degree. Law exists to protect human rights; but this president has admitted that he doesn’t know when a child receives human rights. How can he defend human rights when he doesn’t know who has them?
After speaking to various media, I greeted people on campus who were coming from all over the country to stand with the courageous students who boycotted their own commencement and invited me to lead them in an alternate ceremony.
After I greeted and blessed the demonstrators who were at the campus entrance, and concelebrated a special Mass for Life, I led the Class of 2009 Vigil for Life. We meditated on the Glorious Mysteries of the Rosary, on the victory of life over death, and on the fact that Jesus is King over every nation, over the courts, the Congress, and the White House. As I gave the students and their families reflections on these truths, the current occupant of the White House was calling the graduates to have “open minds, open hearts” and a spirit of dialogue.
Now dialogue with our opponents on this issue is something we at Priests for Life specialize in. I maintain friendships with abortion advocates and practicing abortionists. The clarity of our own convictions never means we despise, demonize, or shut out other people. And yes, we are willing to collaborate with others in morally legitimate ways to reduce the numbers of abortions.
But the President’s remarks had a glaring omission. While willing to dialogue and to promote adoption, he gave no indication of any willingness to protect the children in the womb. And that’s the crux of the issue. In his remarks, he referred to the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court decision that outlawed segregation. Certainly, his call for open minds does not include openness to reconsider the segregation issue. There’s a right answer to it, period.
So it is with the protection of the unborn. And as quiet again descended on campus at the end of the day, I reflected…Open minds, yes, but for the purpose of eventually firmly closing upon the truth! And isn’t that supposed to be the purpose of Catholic universities?
I'm not Catholic and didn't attend Notre Dame but I am outraged that faithful pro-life Catholics who attended the university had to watch this farce unfold.
Notre Dame is supposed to still stand for faithful Catholicism but, alas, inviting a vehemently pro-abortion president and awarding him an honorary degree flies in the face of all of that.
Barack Obama talks about discussing abortion reasonably. When? Where? With whom? Has he invited pro-life groups to the White House? Has he reached out to them in various venues to discuss the issue? The closest he has come to rubbing elbows with pro-lifers is at events like the Notre Dame commencement. Being in the same room with pro-lifers does not a conversation make.
I won't believe anything he says about a "reasonable" discussion on abortion until I see the White House announcement of a summit at which legitimate pro-life groups are invited to discuss the abortion issue. I won't believe it until I see the White House take reasonable positions on abortion-related issues. I won't believe it until I see Barack Obama leave alone protective legislation and laws such as the Hyde Amendment.
Until then, Obama's promises are just smoke in the wind.
First Things looks at whether the Commander-in-Chief can be converted.
CNN's Ed Henry asked:
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. In a couple of weeks, you're going to be giving the commencement at Notre Dame. And, as you know, this has caused a lot of controversy among Catholics who are opposed to your position on abortion.
As a candidate, you vowed that one of the very things you wanted to do was sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which, as you know, would eliminate federal, state and local restrictions on abortion. And at one point in the campaign when asked about abortion and life, you said that it was above — quote, above my pay grade.
Now that you've been president for 100 days, obviously, your pay grade is a little higher than when you were a senator.
Do you still hope that Congress quickly sends you the Freedom of Choice Act so you can sign it?
OBAMA: You know, the — my view on — on abortion, I think, has been very consistent. I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue.
I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they — if they suggest — and I don't want to create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that people have to wrestle with and families and individual women have to wrestle with.
The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that — that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day. And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States, in consultation with their families, with their doctors, with their clergy.
So — so that has been my consistent position. The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion, particularly if we can reduce the number of teen pregnancies, which has started to spike up again.
And so I've got a task force within the Domestic Policy Council in the West Wing of the White House that is working with groups both in the pro-choice camp and in the pro-life camp, to see if we can arrive at some consensus on that.
Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not highest legislative priority. I believe that women should have the right to choose. But I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that's — that's where I'm going to focus.
Talk about a non-answer answer. BTW, I don't know of pro-life groups who are working with the White House-- to my knowledge none have been invited. If anyone knows otherwise, please let me know.
Douglas Kmiec, the widely recognized Catholic who supported Barack Obama during the election and claimed that Obama was pro-life, still believes this.
I think that instead of maintaining any Catholic supporters who believed the falsehood that Obama was pro-life, Kmiec is hurting his own credibility by continuing to promote the lie. Despite all the pro-abortion policy Obama has signed, Kmiec still says Obama is pro-life.
Maybe in an alternate universe, but not this one.
President Obama is doing a great job fulfilling all of his campaign promises: to pro-abortion groups.
Tonight, Obama signed an executive order overturning Mexico City Policy which banned U.S. funds from going to groups that perform or promote abortion overseas. Monday, Mr. Obama will sign an executive order overturning the Bush Administration's ban on federal funding for embryo-killing stem cell research.
And for all of you pro-lifers who voted for him, congratulations for buying into the Douglas Kmiec-hype about Obama "really" being pro-life. Next time, please listen to the rest of us pro-lifers who have been in the trenches. When we say someone is pro-abortion to the gills and Planned Parenthood likes them, well then, it's pretty safe to say that they are for abortion on demand.
'Nuff said.
A letter signed by the leaders and representatives of thirty pro-life organizations was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee asking for a review of Obama nominees.
NBC has rejected the following ad because it is too "political" and an "advocacy ad." NBC has refused to run it during the Super Bowl. See the story in the Washington Times:
The ad was produced by CatholicVote.org
The strange thing is that the group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or PETA also planned to run an ad. Apparently it was graphic and instead of outright rejecting it, NBC asked for eight (!) edits. PETA refused and NBC is not running the ad.
PETA's ad was obviously issue advocacy just like CatholicVotes--but NBC has a double-standard when it comes to issue ads. If it's liberal, they like it. If it's not, then it's a political ad and they don't do those.
NBC should just admit that it's a shill for liberal causes and be done with it.
I had every intention of posting blog entries this past month but we're still working out the kinks involved with my website being available at school so I can write posts during my lunch hour. The site is currently blocked by parental controls and, although I submitted a request, the URL wasn't quite right (my fault!) and it is still not accessible.
In addition, I have to be honest and say that, to some degree, I was off in the corner licking my wounds.
I mean, really, President-I'm-for-FOCA-Obama?
Well, it's a done deal and his proclamation today declaring his support of Roe was not at all surprising. I was just glad that President Bush was able to issue his proclamation declaring January 18, 2009 "Sanctity of Human Life Day." It was the last in a long line of pro-life initiatives, laws, executive orders and proclamations promoted or authored by the Bush White House.
Today, on this 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we will miss having our champion, President George W. Bush, in the White House. God bless you, sir, and God bless the United States.
Barack Obama is, without a doubt, the most pro-abortion candidate ever to run for the presidency.
Today, pro-abortion groups were congratulating themselves and each other for the election of Barack Obama and other pro-abortion politicians across the country.
According to CNSNews:
Planned Parenthood, NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) Pro-Choice America, and the Center for Reproductive Rights have each publicly congratulated the new president-elect on his victory.
“NARAL Pro-Choice America worked hard for our slate of pro-choice candidates across the country, including pro-choice Sen. Barack Obama, and that hard work resulted in the reaffirmation of our commitment to the values of freedom and privacy,” Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America said in a statement.
The Center for Reproductive Rights has already sent a letter to the president-elect outlining what they would like to see come out of the Obama White House:
In a three-page letter, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) asked the president-elect to pursue other specific items on the abortion-rights agenda:
1. To stop funding abstinence-only education programs as part of the in the Title V Maternal-Child Health Block Grant and the Community-Based Abstinence-Education programs. CRR also wants the new administration to appoint agency heads “who will not allow politics to trump science.”
2. To appoint federal judges "committed to supporting established constitutional rights.” Specifically, the letter emphasizes the importance of judges who will preserve “reproductive rights.”
3. To send representatives to the U.N. who will promote abortion and “reproductive rights."
The center also wants Obama to repeal what it calls the “Global Gag Rule” – also known as the Mexico City Policy, a Reagan-era policy that forbids U.S. funding going to support abortion overseas – and to begin again to fund the U.N. Population Fund, a program which the Bush administration stopped funding because it supported forced abortion and sterilization programs overseas.
The abortion rights group asked that the administration direct the new Health and Human Services Secretary to reassess the FDA’s policy restricting over-the-counter access to so-called “emergency contraception.”
To every "pro-lifer" who voted for Barack Obama claiming that he wouldn't be that bad on abortion and that the "good" outweighed the "bad": congratulations you just turned back the clock on the pro-life movement by about 15/20 years.
Great job.
The rest of us will be trying to prevent CRR's wish list from becoming a reality.
I have to admit that I am nervous about Tuesday. On the one hand, I don't trust anything the media has to say about polling numbers, on the other hand, I know that it's going to be a close race.
I realize that many Americans are going to go to the polls with the attitude of "anybody" but a Republican but it is my hope that they go to the polls with more thoughtfulness than that. I just have my doubts.
For some, this election is a litmus test on whether America can move past racism. This is wrong. This election is about ideologies and beliefs not the color of a man's skin. I would gladly vote for a man or woman of color if their beliefs mirrored many of my own but that's not the case with Barack Obama.
Barack Obama represents much of what I have worked against. I don't care about the color of his skin; I care about what he believes. In most cases, what he believes is in opposition to what I believe so I cannot vote for him.
I can and will vote for John McCain.
Should John McCain not win, I will do everything in my power to make Barack Obama's position on issues such as the Freedom of Choice Act, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act or the Born Alive Infants Protection Act known far and wide. The whole of the pro-life movement worked hand in glove to stem the tide of pro-abortion policies that came from the Clinton White House and we will do so again, if necessary.
But first, Tuesday, November 4th.
Please vote-- and vote pro-life. Vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin.
During the latest debate, Barack Obama again muddied the waters about his record on abortion. Douglas Johnson from National Right to Life noted in his analysis:
In the debate, Obama said that the state BAIPA "would have helped to undermine Roe v. Wade." To evaluate this claim, one must examine the actual language of the BAIPAs. The original 2001 bill was only three sentences long; the third sentence was as follows: "(c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law." As recently as August 19, 2008, the Obama campaign issued a memo in which it singled out that sentence as "Language Clearly Threatening Roe." This claim is consistent with Obama's 2001 argument that a "previable fetus" should not be regarded as a person, even when born alive.
Read the entire analysis from National Right to Life's Legislative Director Douglas Johnson.
Nationally syndicated columnist and head of the Media Research Center, Brent Bozell, has a great piece out today about the media's glossing-over of Obama's abortion stance.
I'm trying to back into the swing of things by posting as much as possible. Here is my latest column for LifeNews.com:
Once again, the political season brings out the strangest behavior in people.
Normal, ordinary citizens seem to morph into voters with "The Rage" at the mere mention of the candidate they oppose.
Where have we gone wrong as a nation? Have we lost our sense of etiquette? Have we no manners when we disagree on the issues?
I fear our problem runs deeper than that.
Over the years, certain candidates and their friends in the media have become very adept at manipulating the facts regarding a candidate's record on an issue. As a result, people vote and react with their "feelings."
No longer do we find facts easily at our disposal. If you want to learn about a candidate, you—not the local news reporter—you will have to be the one to sift through records and web sites to figure out where a candidate stands. Manipulation and propaganda rear their ugly heads during these elections and the whitewashing of a candidate's record is just part of the business for some.
As hard as it is—it seems—to find the truth, it is out there. Take for instance, a recent article that appeared in National Review. Written by National Right to Life's Legislative Director Douglas Johnson, the article addresses the deliberate campaign to mislead American voters about Barack Obama's record on abortion. Johnson wrote:
The Barack Obama 'messaging machine' is now in full overdrive mode, seeking to mislead religiously committed Americans into thinking that Obama has a middle-of-the-road position on abortion policy and will promote 'abortion reduction.'
. . .
One important part of the 'faith outreach' sales pitch has been to insist that Obama would promote "abortion reduction" policies — that is to say, policies that would have the practical effect of reducing the number of abortions performed, without actually restricting abortion directly. This spiel was really a public relations strategy cooked up at a liberal think tank called Third Way, where veteran pro-abortion activists develop 'messaging' strategies to help pro-abortion politicians camouflage their positions. The Third Way 'Culture Program' (responsible for the 'abortion reduction' strategy, among other projects) is directed by Rachel Laser, whose previous job was with the Health and Reproductive Rights group at the National Women's Law Center, and who before that worked for Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, a major abortion provider.
But despite such efforts, more and more Americans are learning that the real Barack Obama is firmly committed to an agenda of sweeping pro-abortion policy changes that, if implemented, could be expected to drastically increase the numbers of abortions performed.
Once again, we see a candidate with a 100 percent approval rating from groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood whitewashing his record. Barack Obama claims to want to decrease the number of abortions in the U.S. but the policies he promotes such as pushing for the passage of the Freedom of Choice Act, reversing Mexico City Policy and appointing justices to the U.S. Supreme Court—who would broaden the scope of Roe v. Wade—would have the opposite effect.
Is Barack Obama that naïve?
No, he's not.
He's well aware of the fact that what he says and what he would do are poles apart. But Barack Obama is banking on the millions of American who do not know his record. He's banking on the millions of Americans who blithely accept what a politician says he will do. He's banking on the fervor of the mass media to give him a pass on this issue.
We must work now, right now, to protect the most vulnerable among us from the roll back of pro-life policies.
On November 5th, it will be too late.
Catholic News Agency is reporting that Michelle Obama defended her husband's position regarding abortion on demand saying,
"He’ll protect a woman’s freedom of choice, because government should have no say in whether or when a woman embraces the sacred responsibility of parenthood."
What baloney!
Parenthood begins at fertilization. We don't tell our friends the happy news that we are pregnant with a "fetus." We tell them we are having a baby. We don't say that we went to the obstetrician to hear the heartbeat of the "products of conception" we are carrying. We tell them that we heard "our baby's" heartbeat.
It is about the time a woman finds out she is pregnant that her baby's heart begins to beat. At eight weeks, a baby has all of its organs and the brain waves can be detected.
Parenthood is a great responsibility but it begins long before birth--Michelle Obama can try to whitewash it but the goal of an abortion is a dead baby.
She is right about one thing, her husband is unparalleled in his defense of abortion on demand.
Factcheck.org released a report declaring that Obama was wrong and NRLC was right.
NRLC has the latest in a white paper the Federal Legislation Department has produced.
